"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:



we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

I suggest you restrict yourself to talking about things you know about, the
price of organic milk has collapsed in the UK because of over production.
Organic is a very small niche market


When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs change
in price on the world market. In NZ matters will be different again because
of the predominance of grass in the diet and therefore, as the feed quality
of grass can change on a daily basis depending on the weather or field,
there is little consistancy in feed


If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have
been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink)
for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.


Well it managed to pick up mine!

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect


Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by any
evidence whatsoever


Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

One guy recounts a few tall tales

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt? Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon


Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it in
any other country in the world

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on a
well run beef unit


Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

You believe one farmer who says what you want to hear, and disbelieve one
farmer who doesn't and tells you what is really going on. That is your
problem not mine

Jim Webster

On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forag...y_fed_spec.htm

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forag...y_fed_spec.htm

p=0.15 means that there is 15% chance that the result is spurious.

This is really a non-experiment on purpose I would say. The number
of subjects has been kept down to 8 pairs so it is really impossible
to get the p=0.05 needed to conventionally say you have
significance. Once you have set up the experiment I think that would
be the major cost and going to 16 pairs would have allowed the
required significance and not cost much more.

On 19 Aug 2003 10:18:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forag...y_fed_spec.htm

p=0.15 means that there is 15% chance that the result is spurious.

No,no, you can't conclude like that. But, it is a common
misunderstanding of p-values. p=15 means there is 15 % chance of
observing a spurious difference of the observed magnitude or larger,
-if- the situation is such that any difference observed will be
spurious, i.e. when reality is that there is no difference.

This is really a non-experiment on purpose I would say. The number
of subjects has been kept down to 8 pairs so it is really impossible
to get the p=0.05 needed to conventionally say you have
significance.

I couldn't be harsh as that. But of course, if a relatively few more
animals had been used in the experiment, and the same difference had
been observed in e.g. avg. dry matter intake between groups, that
difference would have been considered significant when tested at the
p=0.05 level.

Once you have set up the experiment I think that would
be the major cost and going to 16 pairs would have allowed the
required significance and not cost much more.

I am not sure that is true. Rather I should think the cost of the
present experiment would be very significantly related to the number
of animals. I mean, these are big animals, cows, they are not fed,
kept and housed cheaply. If they were mice or rats, I would tend to
agree.

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:



we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

I suggest you restrict yourself to talking about things you know about, the
price of organic milk has collapsed in the UK because of over production.
Organic is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up. So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.



When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs change
in price on the world market.

When above I spoke of the butter fat (BF) composition, I was not
speaking of the proportion of fat in the milk, your usual
measurement, but what constitutes the fat. That latter is not
usually measured. Some taste tests may be done. The butter churners
may notice a difference per batch.

In NZ matters will be different again because
of the predominance of grass in the diet and therefore, as the feed quality
of grass can change on a daily basis depending on the weather or field,
there is little consistancy in feed

I used to be a big milk drinker. I noted the turnip sort of taste of
the milk once. I think sometiems curly kale had been fed in winter.
But then there was a move to corn for times of grass shortage. Milk
probably tasted a bit better was only 50% in vitamin E & carotene I
suppose. Especially the homogenised trim milk would go off in
flavour fairly quickly as it spoiled faster. Attempts have been made
to fix that by quicker refrigeration, I think, at the farm, perhaps.



If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have
been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink)
for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.


Well it managed to pick up mine!

Yes because nz.general is on the newsgroups.


there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.


Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by any
evidence whatsoever

Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.


Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.


Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt? Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon

Torsten has given some, now more has to be done.


Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it in
any other country in the world

I think Donkin is Indiana.


Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?

They have a lot to do.

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on a
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.


Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?




As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

You believe one farmer who says what you want to hear, and disbelieve one
farmer who doesn't and tells you what is really going on. That is your
problem not mine

Ridzon isn't a farmer if you read it.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up.

No, they sold it as conventional because no one was willing to pay organic
price for it, not enough people actually want the damned stuff


So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

Rubbish, the proportion of UK output that is organic is very small indeed


You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

Total rubbish. People are actively costing out quitting organic production
and going back to conventional dairy production because the costs of organic
are so much higher. The only thing that stops them is that they will have to
pay back the organic conversion grant if they give up within a certain
period. Organic is not easier to sell


New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.

And immediately the organic price will drop and it will become uneconomic.
It is a niche market and very sensitive to overproduction. In the EU we saw
it first in Denmark, then we saw it in the UK,




When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis
(at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in
the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a
lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs
change
in price on the world market.

When above I spoke of the butter fat (BF) composition, I was not
speaking of the proportion of fat in the milk, your usual
measurement, but what constitutes the fat. That latter is not
usually measured. Some taste tests may be done. The butter churners
may notice a difference per batch.

As I said, this changes on a daily or weekly basis on cattle that eat grass
alone


Snip

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.


Well it managed to pick up mine!

Yes because nz.general is on the newsgroups.

Except that I post of sci agric the same as Torsten, I don't post on nz
general.



there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.

Or even better watch what happens to a herd of a thousand or more dairy cows
as different loads of maize gluten arrive every week. If there is any
difference between them and the proportion of GM/NonGM you will know within
a couple of days.



Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with
farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We
first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the
cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to
eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by
any
evidence whatsoever

Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.

Why waste time on an experiment when you have thousand cow herds out there
in the real world feeding the damn stuff?



Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and
stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And none of them more than cosy anecdotes, none of them condescend to
provide any hard evidence. Doubtless Gordon could dig out a score of beef
fatteners who will provide pleasant anecdotes about how well beef fattens
off GM maize. Somehow I doubt you will find these at all acceptable


And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.

So what



Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible
toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that
the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically
treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the
feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt?
Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon

Torsten has given some, now more has to be done.


Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it
in
any other country in the world

I think Donkin is Indiana.


Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told
him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?

They have a lot to do.

If there was any mileage in the story they would have been in there pushing
it for all it is worth


These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed
as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late.
Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a
study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on
a
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.

The result wasn't valid note. Also a beef unit finishing several thousand
head would pick up trends faster
If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to
it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?

don't be silly, to improve palatability would increase cost and would leave
the product different. They would have to charge for it and declare it.
Anyway, how would they improve palatability at no cost, pray tell, the feed
industry has been looking for this magic solution for generations

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up.

No, they sold it as conventional because no one was willing to pay organic
price for it, not enough people actually want the damned stuff

There is a bit of a problem with milk because a lot of health-conscious
people think milk is designed for young cows, not adult humans.

Besides what is `organic price'? After conversion what proportion of costs
is subsidy, compared to non-organic? What rake off is going to
distributors?

Do you not think that bringing organic into the picture has saved jobs for
a few dairy farmers, as well as given more wealth to some distributors? I
see jobs rather than profit as the key in the future.

So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

Rubbish, the proportion of UK output that is organic is very small indeed

And what proportion of organic milk is imported and sold cheaper and why?


You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

Total rubbish. People are actively costing out quitting organic production
and going back to conventional dairy production because the costs of organic
are so much higher.

How much of that is the distributors' fees?

The only thing that stops them is that they will have to
pay back the organic conversion grant if they give up within a certain
period. Organic is not easier to sell

Perhaps a bit harder for milk. Give us the relative subsidy data.


New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.

And immediately the organic price will drop and it will become uneconomic.
It is a niche market and very sensitive to overproduction. In the EU we saw
it first in Denmark, then we saw it in the UK,

I suppose checking that food is non-GM has increased cost.

Then here there are very silly things happening. As I complained to the
supermarket their price on the display stand has been quite a bit higher
than what comes up on the docket when I buy it. So then how do people know
they can afford it when they see the high price? Then it sits on the
shelf, costing space, too.

Shops need to treat organic better. Why do the conventional veges go on
the cool moist display while the organic wilt in the hot shop?

When above I spoke of the butter fat (BF) composition, I was not
speaking of the proportion of fat in the milk, your usual
measurement, but what constitutes the fat. That latter is not
usually measured. Some taste tests may be done. The butter churners
may notice a difference per batch.

As I said, this changes on a daily or weekly basis on cattle that eat grass
alone

But not anything like the huge difference when going to grain feed.

Snip

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.

Or even better watch what happens to a herd of a thousand or more dairy cows
as different loads of maize gluten arrive every week. If there is any
difference between them and the proportion of GM/NonGM you will know within
a couple of days.

What about from year to a couple fo years later as the amount of unkown GM
increases?

Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.

Why waste time on an experiment when you have thousand cow herds out there
in the real world feeding the damn stuff?

Then show us your figures from year to year.
One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And none of them more than cosy anecdotes, none of them condescend to
provide any hard evidence. Doubtless Gordon could dig out a score of beef
fatteners who will provide pleasant anecdotes about how well beef fattens
off GM maize. Somehow I doubt you will find these at all acceptable

GM maize is more estrogenic so I suspect it would have steroidal effect.


And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.

So what

So he might be worried about funding for his dept drying up if he finds
problems.
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.

The result wasn't valid note.

It showed a trend but was only done with 16 cows. It was valid as far as
it went.

Also a beef unit finishing several thousand
head would pick up trends faster

Need to take weather into account from year to year, too.

improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?

don't be silly, to improve palatability would increase cost and would leave
the product different. They would have to charge for it and declare it.
Anyway, how would they improve palatability at no cost, pray tell, the feed
industry has been looking for this magic solution for generations

So much of the GM stuff is loss leader that the companies would probably
pay that to keep up market cofidence in their seeds, so they can still
sell their associated chemicals which bring in the profit.

On 17 Aug 2003 21:40:58 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

The Japanese like "marbled" beef. Our grass fed aren't very popular
except that it is perceived as "organic" . To get marbling, the
beast's calories need increasing by feeding grains an so on.

On 18 Aug 2003 07:04:58 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

Is this relevant to GM?

On 18 Aug 2003 10:49:56 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.


Linkname: Rapport-skabelon
URL: http://www.agrsci.dk/ark/ARK-arsberetning2002_uk.shtml
size: 213 lines

[...]
Over the last couple of years maize has become increasingly popular in
the Danish silage production at the expense of grass because of a
better profitability. Therefore studies have been initiated to
investigate what consequences it has on different quality parameters
of milk to feed dairy cows maize silage instead of grass silage.

Milk from cows in an experiment with two groups of cows fed maize and
grass silage, respectively, in a cross-over experimental design for 2
x 4 weeks was subsequently analysed for:
* fatty acid composition
* content of carotenoids
* content of vitamin E

Furthermore, we have analysed sensory characteristics in fresh and
stored milk from the cows fed maize and grass silage, respectively.

The results of these investigations show, that feeding with maize
silage reduces the amount of the polyunsaturated fatty acid linolenic
acid in the milk, and at the same time the content of vitamin E and
beta-carotene is reduced with approximately 50% and 62%, respectively,
compared to milk from cows fed grass silage. Both vitamin E and
beta-carotene are important antioxidants that preserve the freshness
of milk, and therefore it should be assumed that a great reduction of
these antioxidants will reduce the shelf-life of milk as well as other
dairy products considerably.

The sensory analyses of the milk showed a significant difference
between the taste of milk from cows fed maize silage compared with the
milk from cows fed grass silage. Thus, the sensory panel described the
milk from cows fed maize silage as creamy, sweet and tasting like corn
flakes, which are all perceived as positive descriptors, whereas the
panel used descriptors about the milk from cows fed grass silage that
usually associate with negative tastes.
[...]

And other studies give grass-silage-fed cows as giving milk higher in the
cancer-protective conjugated linolenic acid, and other matters.

This is in many many foods.

I used to notice the varying tastes in milk when I used it (pasteurised).

Blindfolded?

A few years ago I noted that full cream non-homogenised bottled milk had
started to have its top milk turned to butter by the time it was
delivered. In earlier years it was possible to pour off the top milk.
Perhaps corn feeding was increasing here?

And perhaps the bottles were jiggled more in transport.
Or a different breed of cow.

But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

Hooley Dooley. Show us the scientific evidence.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:23:01 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forag...y_fed_spec.htm

And have you emailed them to ask why? Or are you just going to let
your aspersions stand?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up.

No, they sold it as conventional because no one was willing to pay
organic
price for it, not enough people actually want the damned stuff

There is a bit of a problem with milk because a lot of health-conscious
people think milk is designed for young cows, not adult humans.

That is a smaller proportion than those who buy organic


Besides what is `organic price'? After conversion what proportion of costs
is subsidy, compared to non-organic? What rake off is going to
distributors?

Milk is not directly subsidised in the EU, but the price is supported by
intervention buying, this has very little effect on the market because
quotas long ago cut out the largest element of over production
..

Do you not think that bringing organic into the picture has saved jobs for
a few dairy farmers, as well as given more wealth to some distributors? I
see jobs rather than profit as the key in the future.

Organic milk has done neither

So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

Rubbish, the proportion of UK output that is organic is very small
indeed

And what proportion of organic milk is imported and sold cheaper and why?

Not every organic standard is the same, also in the EU organic production is
directly subsidised in many countries, so they can produce organic milk and
undercut UK organic production. In much of the EU the conversion grant
continues after conversion, in the UK it only lasts until conversion is
over. Now this has been changed and UK organic producers are getting
continuing subsidy



You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

Total rubbish. People are actively costing out quitting organic
production
and going back to conventional dairy production because the costs of
organic
are so much higher.

How much of that is the distributors' fees?

Sorry but I have better things to do with my life than do your homework.
Organic milk is, at the farm gate, about 25ppl, if they get an organic
premium, conventional is currently about 19ppl (annual rolling figures). As
I don't buy milk I don't know what the retail prices are.


The only thing that stops them is that they will have to
pay back the organic conversion grant if they give up within a certain
period. Organic is not easier to sell

Perhaps a bit harder for milk. Give us the relative subsidy data.

organic gets more subsidy than conventional as it gets everything
conventional gets plus conversion grant



New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.

And immediately the organic price will drop and it will become
uneconomic.
It is a niche market and very sensitive to overproduction. In the EU we
saw
it first in Denmark, then we saw it in the UK,

I suppose checking that food is non-GM has increased cost.

not especially for organic, biggest increase will be the insistence that all
feed for organic milk cows has to be organic. Up until now only 80% (or
thereabouts) had to be, which meant you could feed a lot of cheap
conventional maize and similar. While the supermarkets make a big thing
about being GM free, only a couple of them actually do anything about it.

As I said, this changes on a daily or weekly basis on cattle that eat
grass
alone

But not anything like the huge difference when going to grain feed.


grain feed is more consistent, so the changes will be less noticeable. A
Herd permanently housed can aim at a more consistent product.

Snip

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.

Or even better watch what happens to a herd of a thousand or more dairy
cows
as different loads of maize gluten arrive every week. If there is any
difference between them and the proportion of GM/NonGM you will know
within
a couple of days.

What about from year to a couple fo years later as the amount of unkown GM
increases?

The data is there and will be monitored. You always compare this year with
previous years for benchmarking



Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.

Why waste time on an experiment when you have thousand cow herds out
there
in the real world feeding the damn stuff?

Then show us your figures from year to year.


Certainly, please post your salary cheques

Anyway we don't currently run a beef lot or large dairy herd,

One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And none of them more than cosy anecdotes, none of them condescend to
provide any hard evidence. Doubtless Gordon could dig out a score of
beef
fatteners who will provide pleasant anecdotes about how well beef
fattens
off GM maize. Somehow I doubt you will find these at all acceptable

GM maize is more estrogenic so I suspect it would have steroidal effect.

Probably cancelled out by the clover that was worrying you a week or two
back




And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.

So what

So he might be worried about funding for his dept drying up if he finds
problems.
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.

The result wasn't valid note.

It showed a trend but was only done with 16 cows. It was valid as far as
it went.

Also a beef unit finishing several thousand
head would pick up trends faster

Need to take weather into account from year to year, too.

Weather effects alter from day to day among dairy cattle


improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?

don't be silly, to improve palatability would increase cost and would
leave
the product different. They would have to charge for it and declare it.
Anyway, how would they improve palatability at no cost, pray tell, the
feed
industry has been looking for this magic solution for generations

So much of the GM stuff is loss leader that the companies would probably
pay that to keep up market cofidence in their seeds, so they can still
sell their associated chemicals which bring in the profit.

Gods you talk rubbish. You have of course evidence to back this up?

Jim Webster

In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
[...]

So much of the GM stuff is loss leader that the companies would probably
pay that to keep up market cofidence in their seeds, so they can still
sell their associated chemicals which bring in the profit.

Gods you talk rubbish. You have of course evidence to back this up?

Here is something to go on with:


Linkname: AGNET AUGUST 27
URL: http://131.104.232.9/agnet/2002/8-20..._august_27.htm
Last Mod: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:38:17 GMT
size: 1169 lines


[...]
US FARMERS REAP HEAVY PENALTY FOR SOWING GM CROPS
August 27, 2002
New Zealand Herald
[...]
GM crops have, says
Hatchard, had a disastrous impact on United States farm economies.
[...]
All around, the US food industry has lost billions of dollars in
exports
since introducing GM crops.
US maize prices are at their lowest for 30 years - down from US$3
($6.43) to
$1.30 ($2.79) a bushel.
In 1996, before GM crops were introduced, US maize farmers made a
profit of
US$1.4 billion.
Last year, they lost US$12 billion. The US Government picked up a
third of
this through farm subsidies. Our Government could never afford to
protect
farmers this way.
The key strategy helping US companies recapture lost export markets is
a GM
contamination tolerance of less than 0.1 per cent for approved
varieties and
zero tolerance for unapproved varieties.
Francis Weavers, of the Life Sciences Network, assures us that many
countries are proceeding to commercialisation of GM crops, and that
New
Zealand will miss out unless it follows suit.
In fact, four countries grow 98 per cent of GM crops - the US, Canada,
Argentina and China. All are busy backtracking. Hatchard says that
China and
Argentina are facing commercial realities and implementing plans to
reverse
their commitment to GM crops.
The gates to Europe and Japan for North American GM commodities have
all but
closed.
Canadian canola exports to the EU were worth $180 million in 1996 but
zero
in 1997 and since.
US corn exports to the EU have, similarly, fallen from millions of
metric
tonnes to almost zero since GM Bt corn was introduced.
Canada is implementing voluntary labelling laws and calling for
restrictions
on GM planting of new varieties. Even the US Department of Agriculture
is
committed to a voluntary GM segregation scheme.
Others try to tell us that the wide-scale adoption of GM technology in
North
America implies that US farmers have embraced GM technology because it
is
more profitable. In reality, the marketing of GM seed in North America
and
elsewhere is achieved through a loss-leader policy designed to capture
market share rapidly and create an irreversible shift to GM seeds.
Hatchard goes on to say that the question for the Government is not
green
versus conventional but should we expose the mainstay of our economy,
the
farm sector, to the market strategies of giant US agribiotech
companies
which do not have our interest at heart?
There are no proven market models for either farmers or food companies
to
gain benefits from GM crops. To date, only herbicide companies have
reaped
profits.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:27:10 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:23:01 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forag...y_fed_spec.htm

And have you emailed them to ask why?

No.

Or are you just going to let your aspersions stand?

Yes :-)

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
[...]

So much of the GM stuff is loss leader that the companies would
probably
pay that to keep up market cofidence in their seeds, so they can still
sell their associated chemicals which bring in the profit.

Gods you talk rubbish. You have of course evidence to back this up?

Here is something to go on with:


Linkname: AGNET AUGUST 27
URL: http://131.104.232.9/agnet/2002/8-20..._august_27.htm
Last Mod: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:38:17 GMT
size: 1169 lines


[...]
US FARMERS REAP HEAVY PENALTY FOR SOWING GM CROPS
August 27, 2002
New Zealand Herald
[...]
GM crops have, says
Hatchard, had a disastrous impact on United States farm economies.
[...]
All around, the US food industry has lost billions of dollars in
exports
since introducing GM crops.
US maize prices are at their lowest for 30 years - down from US$3
($6.43) to
$1.30 ($2.79) a bushel.
In 1996, before GM crops were introduced, US maize farmers made a
profit of
US$1.4 billion.
Last year, they lost US$12 billion. The US Government picked up a
third of
this through farm subsidies. Our Government could never afford to
protect
farmers this way.

note that UK farm profitability matches the US figures except we don't have
GM
the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous
Jim Webster